Or.. we could just say 16 T$ (tera dollars) which incidentally would be understandable in all nations? Sneakfrenchifisation :sneaky:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Printable View
Or.. we could just say 16 T$ (tera dollars) which incidentally would be understandable in all nations? Sneakfrenchifisation :sneaky:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Myth Germany lost because it was arrogant, had a big mouth and didn't have the ability to back it up.
Amateurs fight shiny metal object vs shiny metal object. Professionals talk logistics.
Not just the wealth and industrial might to be at war and develop nuclear weapons, nor the industrial might to rebuild an air craft carrier faster than your enemy can conceive it (Midway), the ability to supply both USSR and UK with the materials to fight against an arrogant aggressor and build ships like the liberty.
Then add to it after the Allies defeated the Axis the industrial might to rebuild the economies from scratch. If you want an object lesson in the intent and capability of the US then compare and contrast what Japan and Germany did to their occupied nations and then compare how Western Germany did vs Eastern Germany.
Western Germany was so prosperous that unification for them was a scary thing as the debt to bring Eastern Germany up to scratch was massive.
So lets get real here. WWII Germany was a bunch of bully boy facists who lost most of their great scientists before the war even started. The only awards for logistics that won were best slave and concentration camps and mass graves awards. They started a war, they got trounced and lost all their colonial assets.
On the bright side, their fabs are mostly using machine tools with 1946 and later dates on them, for some reason....Harley Davidson was -- at least as of the mid 1990s from my own personal inspection -- still using machine lathes and such that were constructed in 1901.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
On the other hand, I was never quite so dismissive of European success and approaches as were some posters. I have only asserted that the USA has, traditionally, been unwilling to shoulder the total tax burden typical of a Western European social democracy -- A level that I suspect is necessary to begin to cover the cost of the broader social services/safety net provided.
I am more than willing to acknowledge that the USA has a debt problem. I rather suspect that my preferred solution choices would meet with little support on this forum.
Meh, since when has the Org been a popularity contest? If you can't air strange, unworkable, half-baked, lunatic theories on the Org, where can you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Also, when are we allowed to declare a thread terminally derailed? Seems to me the merciful thing would be to take this one out behind the chemical sheds and shoot it.
I seem to recall there was something about healthcare, but that was another country, and anyway the wench is dead.
Of course logistics plays a key role, and it is closely related to the issues I pointed out:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
- Not enough steel to manufacture spare parts (this includes trucks which are what makes an army supply go forward)
- Not enough fuel for not just tanks but also for the non-combat vehicles, so the forward positions were left woefully undersupplied
So much was the issue that a unit of 50 veteran foot soldiers was ass signed to a single anti-tank cannon (I know the name but can't spell it and not make a jackass of myself since I can't spell in German)
In any event, your notion that Germany lost because they got arrogant is too linear IMO. It is never this simple, and never this black and white. First of all, Germany was set up for WWII. Poland was committing genocide in Prussia and waving their d**cks at Hitler from across the yard, knowing that they had a secret deal with France and England that they'd back them up if Germany invaded.
Hitler surrounded the English army on the atlantic coast and could have captured/massacred them. Instead, he let them go, to show a gesture of good faith to Churchill, who then insisted that the war continued.
Stalin was preparing for war regardless of the German invasion. As such, picking a war with the USSR wasn't Hitler's biggest mistake (as some say) but rather the timing of it and the objectives.
Thinking they could thwart mighty Russia in 2 months time (dreadfully short summer in those parts) IS arrogant. And not counting in the fact that Russia had dirt paths and taiga for infrastructure also... And the biggest one (after letting all those Brits go to their island kingdom) is throwing so much manpower in capturing Moscow. Amrygroup Center was essentially wasted effort. He should have gone for Stalingrad and get the Caucassian oil fields and the iron and coal mines in the Ural mountains, then entrench for the winter.
WWII Germany with enough oil, steel and manpower (from occupied Europe. And not all people were opposed to Nazi rule. It sure as hell wasn't teatime and pancakes for the Ukranian folk. Hell, they viewed the German soldiers as LIBERATORS) could keep a firm hold on Europe that the USA would not be able to crack sans nuclear weapons.
Also, excuse me if I'm wrong, but Germany was actually closer to getting nukes than the USA before it all hit the fan... Regarding occupation - German occupied countries did just fine. The most prosperous countries in Europe now are direct descendants of the HRE (Germany, Austria, Northern Italy) or are Scandinavian. USSR occupation is what made Eastern Germany (as well as Poland, Czheckoslovakia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria) so bad. In fact, this example defeats your own - the German people, when left to freely pursue their industrial and disciplined way of life, can and will build a country that is just awesome.
Germany lends money out now, the USA borrows money. I think that's pretty obvious. Hence, you can see the value of each economy. The real produced and exported goods and services.
That the USA supplied airplanes to the USSR and sent ships to help Britain hold out was remarcable. I admire them for that, but it is, after all an entire CONTINENT and all it's industry directed to war manufacturing. But I say again, if Germany didn't have so much on its plate, the USA would really have a hard time projecting power on continental Europe. Imagine D-Day with a well supplied, veteran, entrenched Wehrmacht waiting for you...
That the USA is a megapower because it can now sustain its economy and mass produce weapons is known. That it has the best power projection in the world currently, is also fact (navy, marines, airforce). But for a country which was left to its own devices on an entire continent I'd rather say this was expected. The industrial might to rebuild France, England and so on is no argument here. Germany was torn inside-out. Entire factories were dismantled and moved to Syberia. There was so much devastation that if this happened to modern day USA you'd spend all your money bailing out your insurance companies... Seriously, America let Detroit happen. Have you seen pictures of post-war Berlin? Have you seen it now?
If I didn't want to try and make something of my life here, I'd probably be living in Germany or the UK. Not in the USA, despite having the option to go there.
It's a rather silly notion: 'Germany could have won, or at least survived WW2, if absolutely everything went right for it.' Sheesh.
Heh, they were once the Germans got through genociding them.Quote:
And not all people were opposed to Nazi rule.
Myth: I don’t want to start a debate on History (there is a place in the org for that) but all your facts are absolutely wrong and come from Rightist/revisionist propaganda.
Germany and its allies (that somehow you forget) lost the war because they were ill prepared for war they initiated and started. All others points (as Stalin preparing a war) are unproved and in fact utterly false. Hitler didn’t want to save the British Army, Hitler, remembering WW1, wanted to secure the flank of his armies, as the French in Lille were still fighting against all odds, and Hitler couldn’t be sure what could come from this. And the battle of Gembloux has proved to the Germans that their tactic could be defeated, so more caution was required.
And yes, you are wrong. Germany even not approached the atomic power, as their path (Heavy Water) was a Cul de Sac.
The myth of USSR saved by the USA material: The first defeat in the Eastern Front came even before the USA was pushed in war (Moscow). And in term of tanks, the Soviets ones were much better than the British, French or US of the times. Or German for the matter.
Now, if you want to carry on this subject, open a debate in the right place. I will be there.
I've actually seen a T55 and I have a colleague who was part of its crew during the mandatory military service era of not so long ago. They were an average tank - not as bad as the French ones, but nowhere near as good as the German ones. But the sheer volume of manufacturing capability and the manpower behind the USSR is waht made that tank into a monster. Having a 5 to 1 numeric advantage would let spearchuckers win vs. so few German tanks.
Let's go to the Monastery, I haven't reserached WWII in-depth, i'm more of a classical antiquity-dark ages-middle ages guy.
Edit: thread done here. Could Germany have won WWII?
T-55, the T-54 with nuclear fallout protection was not a WWII tank and never fought in Europe against German tanks. (You need the dash to distinguish from American T series)Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
However... *cough* at tier IX in Beta it was formidable and maybe the most feared tank on the battlefield. Grouped it was a menace and it needed two fully upgraded tier VIII Tiger II Heavies to make scrap metal of one of them. Their agility was such that large heavies had serious problems getting their barrels into position to hurt them. :sneaky:
Damn it guys, that's what I get for writing before my coffee. Still the 55 and the 34 are close. I belevie they have the same engine? Gotta check my facts first.
The Tigers are so hyped up as the end-all, be-all of WWII tank I can't even tell what's fact and what is "shoots fireballs out of his arse" glorification
Hurr durr, so how do T-34s and T-55s fit into a healthcare debate? And don't trust World of Tanks, most everything has a bigger gun there than it really had and real tankers do not aim for the weak spots, they're happy to hit at all AFAIK.
The Tiger tank was a scary machine because it mostly fought british tanks and T-34s relatively early in the war. The Tiger in Bovington for example has a whole lot of hits from british guns and was apparently only knocked out when a shell lodged itself between the turret and hull and made the turret unusable. 100mm frontal armor was simply a lotin the early war and not every nation initially optimized guns and ammunition for anti-tank warfare since tanks were mostly fighting infantry anyway.
The T-34 had a pretty good armor design concerning penetrations, but it still wasn't good enough to stop shells from the Tiger's gun at about 2km while the T-34 had to come much closer to harm the Tiger. Additionally the armor design hurt crew comfort in the sense that the commander was also the gunner and loader IIRC, or at least one crew member had to perform two functions and the turret was cramped which made the reloading relatively slow. With a higher number of tanks that may not be such a problem I guess. The T-34-85 was apparently quite improved and also far more effective vs. Tigers due to the upgraded 85mm gun. Experts say however, that German engineers were aware of the benefits of sloped armor but those always had to be weighted against the space available inside a tank since you can put less stuff into a tank that has wedges everywhere, think of a room right below a sloped roof.
The T-54/55 only has the bad name from battles it fought when it was already superseded by better tanks AFAIK. It was still the first MBT, combining armor protection of heavy tanks and mobility of medium tanks and making that distinction pretty much obsolete even though it has continued to exist to some extent. I don't think American tanks of the time had any great advantages over the T-55 other than maybe better crew ergonomics. At this time the new tanks of the Soviet Union usually scared the US, which then reacted by trying to invent a tank that could beat them. It was mostly the US acting on superior soviet designs however, the drive to get ahead in tank design was seemingly not so big until the 60ies or 70ies. Composite armor was also first introduced by the Soviet T-64 IIRC.
So to get back on track, what can we learn from this?
First, of course, that Germany never achieved anything, the soviet tanks had similar armor protection with less steel and the American tanks had butter armor that provided high crew survivability when a tank was inevitably shredded because the armor didn't spall as much as harder steel. German tanks were ugly monsters that fell apart on the way to the front anyway and since Hitler was mentally ill yet incredibly evil everything anyone in Germany ever did at the time was bad anyway. Ever heard of despicable people such as Canaris, Bonhoeffer, Beitz and Schindler? Despicable people like Snowden and Manning.
Which brings us right back to death panels in Obamacare. Death panels are necessary to decide who are the most socialist patients most deserving of help because noone wants to spend precious tax dollars on liberal capitalists who despise paying taxes in the first place. It is a far superior method to a market-oriented system where a treatment costs 50000$ and can only be afforded by liberal capitalists while the rest either dies or accumulates debt that is hard to repay with a minimum wage burger flipping job. Then again we just established that jews and burger flippers may not be deserving of human compassion, right? Except if they have the right papers and get abducted by smelly foreign pirates in which case millions of tax dollars should be spent in order to make sure the filthy brownish pirates are killed in the most brutal way possible.
Also if anything reads weird, sorry for my bad English, I meant it in a way that reads good of course and I don't know what half of the words I used mean.
How does warfare relate to health care?
Because the place you will find the highest percentage employees with automatic health insurance and socialized medicine in the USA is the military.
Ah.. but you forget Steel... German high quality steel from before 1945. The most sought after steel resource in the world. Crucial to space programs as it contains little to no radioactivity. Also the steel from the old German navy is the only steel plates that they use with confidence of not breaking or warping during road work, to cover road holes for traffic to drive on. If you have a Tirpitz type ship lying in your back yard, you'll be rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yes, but the military is the only thing worth spending money on since only wars count as achievements and everyone in there is a hero who sacrifices his life for lazy burger flippers who aren't worth anything really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Lies, scapa flow never happened and if it did, it was certainly not an achievement, it just shows once more what a pathetic country Germany is that never achieved anything and only had balls when it was so evil that the balls don't count.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Technology might =/= morally right
If Germans occupation methods as per Poland had been applied by the Allies to Germany. Then 20% of the population post surrender would have been killed. So yes WWII Germany had technology but it was even more lucky in how at least its Western partition got treated considering its own value system.
Yes, but I could swear that two posters here basically said "might makes right" and they don't care about anything else as long as their country has might. And why would they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Absolutely, if we hadn't been so pathetic as to lose the war, this wouldn't be an issue though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I also agree that might =/= right, nor does USA of WWII = USA of now.
Nor do I think that technology = might.
WWII Germany had lots of shiny new gadgets. It just didn't have enough resources to keep up supplying them for a long war. As such they had a tech advantage in the short term but not sustainable might.
US going into Iraq did a similar thing by outsourcing to contractors believing the Iraqis would automatically welcome them and democracy, thereby increasing their cost base dramatically for a long term engagement.